STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 82-2869GM

) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, and ) JORGE L. CABRERA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for administrative hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 12, 1983, in Key West, Florida.

The following appearances were entered:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Eric Taylor, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General and Harry F. Chiles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent James T. Hendrick, Esquire Cabrera: Albury, Morgan & Hendrick, P.A.

317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040

For Respondent E. Baxter Lemmond, Esquire Monroe County: Assistant County Attorney

Monroe County

310 Fleming Street

Key West, Florida 33040

This proceeding was initiated on appeal brought by the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, of a development order in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. The Monroe County Zoning Board issued a final order rezoning Respondent Cabrera's 2.73-acre parcel of land on Key Largo from BU-2 zoning to BU-3Y zoning. Approval of the rezoning was appealed to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, which affirmed that development order. The Department of Community Affairs thereafter filed

the subject appeal with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The matter was then referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.

The issues presented for resolution are, as follows:

1. Whether the Zoning Board failed to provide adequate notice of the actual intended use of the subject parcel to adjacent property owners and the public.

   
   

2. Whether the Zoning Board violated its policy and the instructions of the Monroe County Commission by holding its hearing in Key West rather than in the Upper Keys near the project site.

   
   

3. Whether the Zoning Board erred in failing to review the rezoning application as a "major development" project under Section 6-221, et seq., Monroe County Code, adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 27F-9.17, Florida Administrative Code.

By stipulation of the parties, the Hearing Officer has taken judicial notice of the provisions of the Monroe County Code pertaining to major development projects and to administration of the Zoning Board. The Monroe County rezoning file pertaining to this project, including a transcript of the subject Zoning Board hearing; the rezoning application; photographs of the subject property; and all other documents presented to the Zoning Board and the County Commissioners with regard to this matter was admitted by stipulation as Joint Exhibit 1.

At the hearing, the Petitioner called three witnesses: Dr. Jeffery Doyle, Chief Planner for the Planning, Zoning and Building Department of Monroe County; Kirk Blair, a former member of the Monroe County Commission; and Dagny Johnson, a former member of the Monroe County Zoning Board. The Respondent relied on the record below in evidence as Joint Exhibit 1.

At the conclusion of the proceeding, the parties elected to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Pursuant to an extension granted by agreement of the parties, all proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely submitted on or before October 24, 1983. The parties concomitantly waived the requirement contained in Rule 28-5.402, Florida Administrative Code, regarding 30 days for rendition of the Recommended Order.

All proposed findings of fact, conclusions and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments made by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views expressed herein, they have been accepted. To the extent that such proposed findings, conclusions of the parties and such arguments made are inconsistent therewith, they have been rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions have been omitted as not relevant or as not necessary to the determination of the material issues presented. To the extent that the testimony of various witnesses does not accord with the findings herein, it is not credited.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Jorge L. Cabrera owns a parcel of land on Plantation Key some 2.73 acres in size. It is adjacent to U.S. Highway 1 and was previously zoned BU-2, a medium business district zoning classification. Respondent Cabrera filed his rezoning petition seeking a rezoning to BU-3Y, which would

   have permitted, among other uses, a cement plant, a petroleum storage and distribution facility, warehouse facilities, the repair and storage of construction equipment, an asphalt plant, or industrial parks. He initially informed the Zoning Department of Monroe County, in conjunction with his application for rezoning, that he intended to use the subject site as a storage area for construction equipment.

   
   

2. The Respondent's property is located in a predominantly business area. Immediately across the highway is the State of Florida Highway Patrol Station, through which all trucks passing through the Florida Keys must stop for weighing. The property adjacent to the Respondent's property has a mixture of uses, including a gas tank storage area, a church, a bakery, a trucking company immediately adjacent to the property, heavy equipment storage and a radio transmission tower. To the rear of the property is a parcel owned by Howard Bonebrake consisting predominantly of mangrove wetlands. Howard Bonebrake appeared before the Zoning Board at its April 22, 1982, hearing in Key West, as did representatives of the Upper Keys Association and other residents in the Upper Keys Association and other residents in the Upper Keys and the vicinity of the subject site, in opposition to the proposed rezoning.

   
   

3. The Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency designated by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to undertake statewide comprehensive planning. This project lies within Monroe County, Florida, which is the local government agency which issued the development order respecting the proposed development. On April 19, 1982, at a meeting held in Marathon, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County discussed the Zoning Board meeting which was scheduled for April 22, 1982. The minutes of the County Commission meeting reflected that the following action was taken under the category "Reports and Recommendations of Board Members":

   
   

   A motion was made by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Harvey instructing the Zoning Board to Continue the meeting scheduled for April 22, 1982, to the Upper Keys consistent with the Board's policy of holding meetings in the areas affected. Roll call vote was taken and carried unanimously.

   
   

   No copy of a resolution embodying this Commission action has been placed into evidence.

   
   

4. On April 22, 1982, the Zoning Board held a public hearing in Key West, Florida. Among the items on the agenda was Respondent Cabrera's rezoning application. Zoning Board Member Dagny Johnson sought to have that rezoning petition continued. A member of the Monroe County Commission, Jerry Hernandez, appeared before the Zoning Board at that hearing and advised the Board that it was the intent of the County Commissioners in that April 19 motion to allow the Zoning Board to decide whether the rezoning application by Cabrera was a "controversial issue" or not. He further advised the Zoning Board that it was the Board of County Commissioners' policy to hold hearings in the area of zoning impact or change when controversial issues were involved. He further advised the Board that the County Commission did not seek to dictate a decision on the location of the public hearing to the Zoning Board, but that that was a decision the Zoning Board must make itself. The chairman of the Zoning Board then stated that he had received no instruction from the County Commission to continue the

   hearing. Zoning Board Member Johnson then moved to have the Zoning Board hear zoning cases in the area in which the pertinent property is located. That motion failed for lack of a second.

   
   

5. The Zoning Board's resolution granting Respondent Cabrera the requested rezoning was appealed to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, which affirmed the Zoning Board's decision on August 9, 1982. A motion for rehearing was denied by the County Commission on August 23, 1982. Among the arguments advanced in the appeal to the County Commission and in the rehearing were that the Zoning Board had violated its procedural rules and the County Commission's instructions by hearing the rezoning petition in Key West instead of at the property site on Plantation Key. In spite of the fact that the hearing was conducted in Key West, the adjoining landowner and others in the above association who opposed the rezoning applications had notice of and were in attendance at the rezoning hearing.

   
   

6. Under Monroe County's Major Development Ordinance, adopted by reference as Rule 27F-9.17, Florida Administrative Code, parcels of land of five acres or more involved in a zoning application are considered to be major developments, and their developers are required to submit extensive environmental and public service impact statements. The Zoning Board and its staff also have discretionary authority to declare a project slightly smaller than five acres to be a major development and entitled to such detailed survey and study if the anticipated use is likely to be environmentally damaging, or if the projects meet certain other specific major development criteria. Monroe County's Chief Planner, Dr. Jeffery Doyle, testifying on behalf of Petitioner, established that no project under three acres had ever been considered by the Zoning Board or its staff to be a major development, nor has any concrete batching plant in Monroe County been declared to be a major development by the Zoning Board or its staff in the past.

   
   

7. Concrete batching plants are different, in terms of environmental impacts, from large cement-producing plants, which pose substantial environmental considerations due to their release of substantial dust and particulate pollutants. Such is not the case with the relatively small concrete batching plant involved in this rezoning application and order. Although there was some speculation regarding large amounts of water which a concrete batching plant might use, water being relatively scarce in the Keys, no potential environmental damage posed by the rezoning and the resultant construction or installation of the concrete batching plant was shown. It was not demonstrated at the hearing before the Zoning Board, nor the Hearing Officer, that this project meets any criteria for being characterized as a "major development."

   
   

8. Although a witness for the Petitioner, former County Commissioner Curtis Blair, stated that it was his belief that Monroe County had a policy of hearing zoning applications in the area where the property to be rezoned is located, he was unable to recall any actual adoption of such a policy. He acknowledged that no such rules of procedure for locations of Zoning Board hearings had been placed of record by the County Commission or the Zoning Board and admitted no such rules of procedure for hearing locations had been adopted. Rather, specific requests have been made from time to time of the Zoning Board on specific zoning matters regarding locating the hearings related thereto near the site of the property at issue. The purpose of this supposed "policy" would be to allow citizens most affected by a zoning change to appear and testify regarding it. Representatives of the Upper Keys Citizens Association and the neighbor, Mr. Bonebrake, all of whom oppose the project, were present at the hearing in this instance, however, and testified before the Zoning Board despite

   the fact that the venue of the hearing was in Key West. At the time the County Commission passed its April 19, 1982, motion regarding the request of the Zoning Board to hold the hearing in Plantation Key, the public notice of the Zoning Board hearing had already been promulgated and published and notices had already been sent to the adjacent property owners. Further, the Zoning Board's agenda had already been promulgated and published. Mr. Blair admitted that the April 19, 1982, motion was never incorporated in a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners.

   
   

9. Former Zoning Board Member Dagny Johnson, testifying for the Petitioner, was of the belief that the Zoning Board had a policy to hold meetings in the affected locality, but could not establish the source of any such policy. She admitted that her view of that policy was in the minority and that the other four Zoning Board members did not agree with her that such a policy existed. Although she was certain that all major development projects which were the subject of zoning hearings were heard in the area affected, she could not recall that all other zoning change matters were heard in the affected locality and, in fact, recalled a number of cases where zoning applications were duly agendaed and noticed to the public involving projects outside the locality where the Zoning Board hearing was conducted.

   
   

10. Both witnesses Johnson and Doyle for the Petitioner conceded that the applicant's statement of his intended use of the subject property to be rezoned has "no significance" and that the zoning applicant's intended use is not required to be advertised to the public. Rather, the proposed zone change is the subject of public notice. The applicant, once having secured BU-3Y zoning, could erect whatever structure or perform whatever use that zoning permitted, regardless of the use he may have initially proposed in the zoning application. The applicant's intended use could change; and once the property is rezoned, the property can be put to whatever use the applicant and owner chooses, provided it is within the authorized uses of the new zoning.

    
    

11. Respondent Cabrera in this instance informed the Zoning Board at the hearing of his ultimate intended use, that is, the erection of a concrete batching plant. This was before his application was finally considered and voted upon. He informed the neighboring landowners personally of the intended use of the property prior to the Zoning Board hearing. Those neighboring landowners were in attendance at the hearing and were given an opportunity to oppose his application.

    
    

12. At the Zoning Board hearing of April 22, 1982, Ms. Johnson made a motion calling for the Board to affirm the existence of a policy requiring all zoning changes to be heard in the portion of the Florida Keys where the properties which are the subject of the zoning applications are located. This motion was rejected by the Board, and thus at that point the Zoning Board had not affirmed the existence of such a definite policy. There is no dispute that there is no written rule or policy of the Zoning Board requiring zoning matters to be heard in the locality of the property which is the subject of a zoning application. Further, the Zoning Board's agendas do not show any consistent pattern that such hearings are conducted in the venue of the subject property; rather, some rezoning applications were agendaed in the locality of the property involved, and some were agendaed outside of the area involved in zoning or rezoning applications. It was not shown that the Zoning Board's agendas uniformly set rezoning applications for hearing in the area of impact. Thus, it was not established that any such policy existed in April, 1982, the time period pertinent hereto.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes; Rule 27G-1.01(c), Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

14. Section 380.07, Florida Statutes (1981), provides, as follows:

    
    

    1. There is hereby created the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, which shall consist of the Administration Commission.

    2. Whenever any local government issues any development order in any area of critical state concern, or in regard to any development of regional impact, copies of such orders as prescribed by rule by the state land planning agency shall be transmitted to the state land planning agency, the regional planning agency, and the owner or developer of the property affected by such order. Within 45 days after the order is rendered, the owner, the developer, an appropriate regional planning agency by vote at a regularly scheduled meeting, or the state land planning agency may appeal the order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission by filing a notice of appeal with the commission. The appellant shall furnish a copy of the notice of appeal to the opposing party, as the case may be, and to the local government which issued the order. The filing of the notice of appeal shall stay the effectiveness of

       the order and shall stay any judicial proceedings in relation to the development order, until after the completion of the appeal process.

    3. Prior to issuing an order, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

       shall hold a hearing pursuant to the provisions of chapter 120. The commission shall encourage the submission of appeals on the record made below in cases in

       which the development order was issued after a full and complete hearing before the local government or an agency thereof.

    4. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission shall issue a decision

       granting or denying permission to develop pursuant to the standards of this chapter and may attach conditions and restrictions to its decisions.

       
       

15. Certain principles for guiding development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern have been adopted by the Petitioner as Chapter 27F-8,

    Florida Administrative Code. More specifically pertinent, Rule 27F-8.03, Principles for Guiding Development, at Subsection (2)(a)4 provides, as follows:

    
    

    1. Any development which includes buildings in excess of 45 feet in height;

    2. Any intensive land uses including residential uses of 10 or more dwelling units per acre or, 50 or more total dwelling units; and

    3. All business, commercial or industrial uses of 5 or more acres.

    * * *

    The community impact statement should be designed to enable local governmental officials to determine the proposed development's favorable or unfavorable impact on the environment, natural resources, economy . . . The statement should also require information relative to the projects potential impact of public facilities, including without limitation, water, sewer, solid waste disposal and public transportation facilities.

    
    

16. Chapter 27F-9, Land Planning Regulations for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, is designed to establish land development regulations for Monroe County which implement the principles for guiding development set forth in Chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code. To that end, a policies plan was adopted by resolution on November 12, 1975, by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. That plan was incorporated by reference in Chapter

    27F-9, Florida Administrative Code, in compliance with the principles enunciated in Section 27F-8.03(2)(a)1, Florida Administrative Code. An ordinance regarding the requirement of the above Rule 27F-8.03 provision was adopted as Ordinance No. 21-1975 by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. That was specifically incorporated as Rule 27F-9.08, Florida Administrative Code, and the entire policies plan of Monroe County was incorporated by reference in Rules

    27F-9.01 through 9.18, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

17. The subject parcel is in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern designated pursuant to Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes (1979). The Petitioner, pursuant to Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes (1980), and Chapter 27G-1, Florida Administrative Code, is the state land planning agency authorized by that statutory section to appeal any development order in any area of critical state concern to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The rezoning of the subject property, approved by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners as hereinabove described, constitutes a development order as defined in Subsections 380.031(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, and is therefore appealable to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The subject parcel of property, being in that critical area, is subject to the substantive and procedural regulations specified in Chapters 27F-8 and 27F-9, Florida Administrative Code, known as the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern and the Monroe County Critical Area Regulations, respectively. The Monroe County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1-1973), as subsequently amended, has been incorporated by reference in Chapter 27F-9, Florida Administrative Code, and constitutes the regulations for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern.

18. The Respondent Monroe County has adopted Ordinance No. 17-1975, Section 1, which is codified in part as Section 19-20 and Sections 6-221-245 of the Monroe County Code, in effect at all times pertinent hereto. That ordinance, No. 21-1975, has been adopted by reference by the Administration Commission as Rules 27F-9.06, 27F-9.09, 27F-9.15 and 27F-9.17, Florida Administrative Code, as part of the land planning regulations for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern.

    
    

19. The Petitioner is the state land planning agency, as defined in Section 163.3164(18), Florida Statutes, and is designated to undertake statewide comprehensive planning pursuant to Section 380.031(16), Florida Statutes. The procedures to be followed by the Monroe County Zoning Board are set forth in Section 19-20, Monroe County Code.

    
    

20. The Petitioner contends that the Zoning Board's approval for the subject rezoning violated an established rule of procedure requiring such applications to be heard in the locality of the property subject to the rezoning request. Such a policy is clearly a commendable and desirable object, but the existence of that policy has not been established in this record as of the time pertinent, April 1982. Section 19-20, Monroe County Code, provides that "the Board of County Commissioners shall adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business by the board . . . The monthly meeting shall alternate in the following manner: Key West, Marathon, Plantation Key, Marathon, Key West, etc." Sporadic and occasional requests or motions by the Board of County Commissioners requesting the Zoning Board to hold a hearing in a particular location do not constitute the adoption of "rules of procedure" for the Zoning Board. The Petitioner conceded at the hearing that the "policy" does not appear of record of either board, contending, alternatively, that there was an "unwritten policy" to this effect. There is no evidence to establish that the Zoning Board, in conducting the hearing at issue, departed from the above-quoted procedure established pursuant to Section 19-20, Monroe County Code. Sporadic policy statements or requests by the Board of County Commissioners of the Zoning Board do not satisfy the requirements of that ordinance as duly adopted rules of procedure. Recommendations by the Board of County Commissioners not reduced to resolution form were not shown to legally bind the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board was created under the authority of Chapter 61-2503, Laws of Florida, and it is subject to the control by the Board of County Commissioners in its operations and deliberations in only three ways: the appointment of members, appellate review of its decisions and adoption of rules of procedure pursuant to Section 19-20, Monroe County Code. Thus, a majority vote constituting an expression of the Board of County Commissioners of its desires regarding a specific matter before the Zoning Board for hearing must be deemed to be merely hortatory in nature. It is merely a request and not a resolution binding on the Zoning Board, particularly since it was not shown that the above-adopted procedure for the location of monthly meetings was departed from.

    
    

21. There has been no evidence presented from which it could be concluded that there were any procedural irregularities given the rules of procedure in effect at the time contained in Ordinance No. 19-20, Monroe County Code. Although it is doubtless a better policy to require zoning changes to be heard in the area of impact, a policy which Monroe County apparently subsequently adopted, in this case the purpose of that policy appears to have been served. Although the hearing was held in Key West, the distance involved did not prevent the adjacent property owners nor the Upper Keys Citizens Association and other concerned citizens from appearing and testifying in opposition to the rezoning and raising all pertinent issues appropriate to the question of rezoning. Moreover, it has not been shown in the context of this case that any procedural

    deficiencies should be granted. Parenthetically, it should be noted as to the substantive merits of the rezoning application that the record reveals that the small parcel which was to be rezoned to industrial use is surrounded by compatible industrial and business uses and is buffered by an undevelopable mangrove preserve.

    
    

22. The Petitioner is also contending that the applicant's change in the intended uses (i.e. from storage of construction equipment, as initially requested, to use as a concrete batching plant) was a subterfuge resulting in improper public notice of the zoning request. This contention is rejected for the following reasons: First, Section 19-219.4, Monroe County Code, permits a multiplicity of uses within a BU-3Y zoning classification. The applicant was not restricted to his "intended use." Second, the public notice of proposed rezoning mentions only the proposed zoning classification or district applied for, not the intended use. Section 19-219.4, Monroe County Code, sets forth the uses permitted under a BU-3Y zoning district, which was what was applied for and noticed (rather than merely a request for zoning authority to construct a concrete batching plant), as follows:

    
    

    1. cement plants;

    2. bulk petroleum storage and distribution;

    3. warehouses;

    4. acetylene gas manufacturing and distribution;

    5. repair and storage of construction equipment;

    6. asphalt plants; and

    7. industrial parks.

    
    

    Since that ordinance is duly adopted and published of record, and since the public notice clearly showed that BU-3Y was what was applied for by this applicant, it was not established that the public could have been misled as to the type of usage allowable should the zoning be approved. Third, the unrebutted testimony of the applicant shows that he personally informed each neighboring property owner regarding his intent to erect a concrete batching plant on the property. Finally, the Petitioner's own witness, Dagny Johnson, a former board member, testified that the intended purpose an applicant may have is of little significance because the applicant is in no way bound by his original intent of use of the property, as long as his use comports with the above ordinance regarding permitted BU-3Y zoning uses. Further, Ms. Johnson acknowledged that the use of the property as a concrete batching plant is not the most intensive use permitted under BU-3Y zoning.

    
    

23. With regard to the Petitioner's contention that the Zoning Board should have considered the subject property as a potential major development project, the allegations to this effect are unsupported by record. Ordinance No. 6-222 through 245, Monroe County Code, defines major development projects, as pertinent hereto, as involving parcels more than five acres in size or, as the Petitioner contends, parcels such as this which are nearly five acres in size which will be used in such a way as to be environmentally damaging. Petitioner's only evidence to this effect was the testimony of Dr. Doyle, who testified that parcels almost five acres in size which may cause environmentally deleterious effects, may cause a careful scrutiny by the Zoning Board and its staff to determine whether it should be subject to the various studies provided for regarding major development designations as set forth in the above ordinance. Dr. Doyle also established, however, that no project as small as the Respondent Cabrera's, that is, less than three acres, has ever been declared a major development and that no concrete batching plant has ever been so declared. The Petitioner asserted that a concrete batching plant may pose environmental

    hazards or may consume large quantities of scarce water, but no evidence was offered in the record of the Zoning Board hearing nor at the hearing in this proceeding to establish that any environmental hazards will be caused by the erection of a concrete batching plant on this site. For instance, as Dr. Doyle acknowledged, a cement plant emits a considerable amount of particulate matter and is thus to be considered environmentally noxious, but that a concrete batching plant does not involve such noxious emissions and is therefore not as environmentally hazardous. In point of fact, a cement plant is also a permitted use under BU-3Y zoning. Finally, as revealed by Ordinance 6-222, consideration of a less than five-acre parcel as a major development because of the activity to be conducted on it by a zoning applicant is a matter within the discretion of the Zoning Board; such consideration is not mandatory.

    
    

24. In summary, the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that the placement of a concrete batching facility on the small parcel of land involved constitutes a sufficiently large or hazardous operation so as to require major development review by the Zoning Board and its staff, and there is no competent substantial evidence of record to show that the Zoning Board abused its discretion in failing to so review the project.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED:

That the Petition of the Department of Community Affairs be DENIED.

DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.

P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1983.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Eric Taylor, Esquire Barry F. Chiles, Esquire

Assistant Attorneys General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Mr. John T. Herndon Secretary

Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

Office of the Governor The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

James T. Hendrick, Esquire Albury, Morgan & Hendrick, P.A.

317 Whitehead Street

Key West, Florida 33040

E. Baxter Lemmond, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Monroe County

310 Fleming Street

Key West, Florida 33040

C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2571 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable George Dolezal Box 1029, Duck Key Marathon, Florida 33050

The Honorable Bob Graham Governor

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and

Treasurer The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 82-002869

Orders for Case No: 82-002869